Institutional review board challenges related to community-based participatory research on human exposure to environmental toxins: a case study.
Institutional review board challenges related to community-based participatory research on human exposure to environmental toxins: a case study.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1476-069x-9-39
复制
发表时间：
2010-07-16
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Simpson R
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Brown P;Morello-Frosch R;Brody JG;Altman RG;Rudel RA;Senier L;Pérez C;Simpson R
我们报告了为一个基于社区的参与性研究(CBPR)环境正义项目获得机构审查委员会(IRB)覆盖范围的挑战，该项目涉及向参与者报告生物监测和家庭暴露结果，并包括非专业人员参与研究。我们借鉴我们的经验，通过大学和州机构审查委员会的审查，以及其他CBPR同事的书面陈述和会议演讲和讨论，指导一个多方合作的CBPR项目。我们还采访了参与CBPR的学者，以了解他们在机构审查委员会面前面临的挑战。我们发现，机构审查委员会通常不熟悉CBPR，不愿监督社区合作伙伴，并抵制正在进行的研究人员与参与者的互动。机构审查委员会有时无意中违反了他们本应坚持的慈善和正义原则。例如，一些机构审查委员会拒绝允许向参与者报告个人数据，这与指导越来越多项目的CBPR原则相矛盾。这会造成重大延误，并可能转移研究和传播努力。我们对大学机构审查委员会的广泛教育说服了他们为我们伙伴关系中的两个社区组织提供人类主体保护。IRBs和资助者应该制定明确的、常规的审查指南，尊重CBPR的独特品质，而研究人员和社区合作伙伴可以教育IRB工作人员和董事会成员关于CBPR的目标、道德框架和研究方法。这些战略可以更好地保护研究参与者免受研究过程中不必要的延误和排斥的伤害，同时促进研究结果与参与者和社区的道德沟通。
We report on the challenges of obtaining Institutional Review Board (IRB) coverage for a community-based participatory research (CBPR) environmental justice project, which involved reporting biomonitoring and household exposure results to participants, and included lay participation in research. We draw on our experiences guiding a multi-partner CBPR project through university and state Institutional Review Board reviews, and other CBPR colleagues' written accounts and conference presentations and discussions. We also interviewed academics involved in CBPR to learn of their challenges with Institutional Review Boards. We found that Institutional Review Boards are generally unfamiliar with CBPR, reluctant to oversee community partners, and resistant to ongoing researcher-participant interaction. Institutional Review Boards sometimes unintentionally violate the very principles of beneficence and justice which they are supposed to uphold. For example, some Institutional Review Boards refuse to allow report-back of individual data to participants, which contradicts the CBPR principles that guide a growing number of projects. This causes significant delays and may divert research and dissemination efforts. Our extensive education of our university Institutional Review Board convinced them to provide human subjects protection coverage for two community-based organizations in our partnership. IRBs and funders should develop clear, routine review guidelines that respect the unique qualities of CBPR, while researchers and community partners can educate IRB staff and board members about the objectives, ethical frameworks, and research methods of CBPR. These strategies can better protect research participants from the harm of unnecessary delays and exclusion from the research process, while facilitating the ethical communication of study results to participants and communities.